Re: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign

[Michael Schneider <sastre@anwalt.de>]

Philip,

At 17:05 27.03.01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>Following some feedback please find attached v2 of a draft NC position on 
>Verisign.
>Changes from v1 are highlighted using the Word tracking function. We will 
>use v2 as the base document for discussion tomorrow March 28.
>
>Philip Sheppard

I also have a few comments on your draft:

First I think that we should add the aspect "benefits of change unclear" to 
the summary of the ISPCP position, as this was not only one of the core 
comments I saw on our list, but also the quintessence of all the points in 
our statement.

Second we should describe the constituency as "ISPs and connectivity 
providers", not only because this is the official name but because 
historically using telcos as synonymous with ISPs is a bit of a sensitive 
point.

As far as the resolution on C (subsection 3) is concerned, I'm unhappy 
about the change in version 2. By opening up the alternative of simply 
increasing the sanctions for abuse, we're playing right into the hands of 
the supporters of the new Agreements. Back at the ISPCP conference call 
during which I raised the question of possible sanctions, Louis Touton 
concluded that any abuse of a market-dominating position is a substantial 
breach of the Agreements which could result in termination. Given this, 
ICANN staff might advise the Board that "complete termination is stronger 
rather than weaker than divestment, so that the NC's desire for rigorous 
sanctions is adequately reflected". This option does not exist if we 
concentrate in our policy recommendation on the separation of registry and 
registrar.

Best regards,
Michael Schneider